I've got to say, this makes me a bit antsy. It almost feels like the attitude is that those poor benighted grognards who don't want lots of options when they first roll up their character will be enticed by all the superfunoptioncandy and finally "see the light" and want to get options for their characters once they see what they've been missing.

Actually, I think this akin to the Essentials/Core paradigm: an E-class (simple, limited options) can play at the same table with a PHB-class (complex, many options).

But to Monte's point, I started my current game using Essentials (bringing in 2 newbies to the hobby, thankyouverymuch). By 5th level, the Slayer decided he wanted more options so he retconned into a Weaponmaster.

In a perfect world, I would have preferred the ability to swap class features for powers without having to start a new character. I think that's what Monte is getting at, and I LOVE it.

Here's the thing. Those aren't high level play. The king isn't "high level" he's an aristocrat. If your going to have "Go to Hell/The Abyss/Limbo to bargain for someone's soul" (which is totally a thing you should be able to do) your problems should not be orcs. Yes orcs are iconic, but so are brutal kingdom burning dragons, cunning demonic archdukes, and alien aboleth mage-princes.

Conan and 300 are (in 3.5 terms) E6 campaigns. Yes you should be able to play a game that starts at "one step above Joe the Dirt Farmer" and ends at "king of Sparta" but that should NOT be the core assumptions of the game. Even 4e doesn't assume that. If the new edition's goal is to be inclusive, why is one of its core assumptions that you don't reach a point where your starting enemies aren't a threat?

Here's the thing: I don't hate 4e. Do I think its not great? Yes. Do I think it has fundamental flaws? Yes. Do I think its boring? Sure. But I think those things about 3.5 too. I'm still playing that. Why? because for all its flaws, it starts at a better place than 4e does.

But no one said Orcs would be equally threatening across all levels. They said that the power curve is shallower and therefore monsters of lower (or higher) level will remain a possible threat over more levels than in recent versions of the game.

So your great hero will still slap the lowly orc grunt silly for daring to attempt to stab him in the face, and will still feature predominantly in campaigns against demons and archdevils.

The only difference is the DM won't have to modify a level 1 orc's stat-block in order to make it possible to use him agianst a level 4 PC without rolling 17's on the die to possibly hit and may also throw in a level 8 Ogre against the level 4 PCs without the PC having to roll the 17s or having to level the ogre down.

It's simply grind-reducing, prep-easing, and allows for things like characters of differing levels to play together and off-level adventures to be viable options with less tweaking.

Well, I strongly disagree. D&D is not meant to be a realistic simulation*, but heroic fantasy game. Why try to turn it into a game that it's never been (and indeed, expressed and deliberately designed not to be, in the opening of the 1st ed DMG, EGG is proud to call it a "dismal failure" at realistic simulation, and happy that it's a fun game).

While it is extreme, King Arthur was said to singlehandedly have killed 960 men at the battle of Mons Badonicus. I would hate to actually run that in a game, but I think that should be possible at the very, very high end - that's the kind of stuff D&D is meant to emulate, after all.

* Though I doubt that even in a realistic simulation, a highly skilled warrior would allow himself to get stabbed in the face with a greatsword by a neophyte. Sure, maybe by a similarly grizzled, veteran warrior of the orcs. But not a green faced recruit. There's a lot of skill in fencing/hand to hand fighting

Fair enough. I don't expect D&D to be a perfect model of reality. I simply feel that there's a difference between my idea of heroic fantasy and D&D's current idea.

Again, I have no problem with Conan taking on several warriors. In your King Arthur example, his ability was augmented by Excalibur which was (according to those stories) one of the most powerful magic weapons available. In real life, Audie Murphy stood alone against an advancing enemy. Sometimes skill, better equipment, or just pure luck and determination can swing the tide of battle in your favor. I have no problem with that.

I simply prefer a world in which that is not assumed to be the norm for everybody. I prefer mechanics which don't support that as being the norm for everybody.

I'm still liking what I hear so far, but that's part of what worries me. That may sound negative and cynical, but it's not meant to be - I'm actually quite excited and really looking forward to seeing what they've done for 5E. My problem is that these guys talk the talk a little too well, and what they want to accomplish sounds like a pipe dream. If they can pull it off, more power too 'em. I'm certainly cheering them on. I'm glad they're finally getting past answers that sound like marketing and into answers that have some polish to them, but they're not quite past it yet.

Well like all of you I am hopefull. Yet there is one thing I don't quite clearly understand.

3E D20 was made to be the Universal system right? So why doesn't 5E use that model again. Basically that was compatible with every iteration of almost any RPG out there.
Pazio has made some great improvements to it too... so is this new version of 5E D&D going to be able to compete?

Plus a variant All-Edition version of D&D kinda came out in XDM: Xtreme Dungeon Mastery by Tracy Hickman that simplifies the RPG mechanics. Is 5E aiming to be like this?

I think perhaps they are missing the point, IMHO. For me it was always the Fluff... injecting flavor in the game with complete campaign settings. Then a couple of books with game mechanics.

Well I hope that 5E offers something, if not I found a home with Paizo.

Well like all of you I am hopefull. Yet there is one thing I don't quite clearly understand.

3E D20 was made to be the Universal system right? So why doesn't 5E use that model again. Basically that was compatible with every iteration of almost any RPG out there.
Pazio has made some great improvements to it too... so is this new version of 5E D&D going to be able to compete?

Plus a variant All-Edition version of D&D kinda came out in XDM: Xtreme Dungeon Mastery by Tracy Hickman that simplifies the RPG mechanics. Is 5E aiming to be like this?

I think perhaps they are missing the point, IMHO. For me it was always the Fluff... injecting flavor in the game with complete campaign settings. Then a couple of books with game mechanics.

Well I hope that 5E offers something, if not I found a home with Paizo.

I'm not entirely sure I follow you, but if you're talking about the d20 mechanic of "roll d20 add bonus check against difficulty" I would be very surprised if 5e abandons it. So surprised, in fact, that I'm willing to bet it's there.

Also I'm not sure what point you think they are missing. "Fluff... injecting flavor with campaign settings" has been mentioned as part of the plan. So they're not missing it.

I've been optimistic throughout the 5e discussions, but reading this transcript has me giddy. I expect to give a ton of money to D&D when it is released. They've initially won over this customer at this point.